Big three *Australian* ISPs say peer-to-peer OK

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by -=rjh=-, Feb 21, 2006.

  1. -=rjh=-

    -=rjh=- Guest

    http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,18213133^15306^^nbv^15306,00.html

    "Australia's largest internet providers say they are not limiting
    peer-to-peer file sharing traffic on their networks and have no
    immediate plans to impose restrictions on the activity.

    However, some say they have the means to apply limits if that is
    required in the future.

    Internet suppliers recently revealed that file-sharing traffic is
    restricted on two of Australia's best-known dedicated wireless data
    networks.

    This prompted fears of the practice being adopted more widely"

    But, note the subtext:

    "Telstra does not shape file sharing traffic," a Telstra spokesman says.

    The only shaping Telstra does is to accounts that have gone over 10GB in
    a month, he says."

    So - why has it been so necessary to shape P2P traffic in NZ?
     
    -=rjh=-, Feb 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. -=rjh=-

    Tony Guest

    >
    > "Telstra does not shape file sharing traffic," a Telstra spokesman says.
    >
    > The only shaping Telstra does is to accounts that have gone over 10GB in
    > a month, he says."
    >
    > So - why has it been so necessary to shape P2P traffic in NZ?


    Beacuse ISP's in NZ can barely survive as it is ....
     
    Tony, Feb 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. -=rjh=-

    Tony Guest

    > Beacuse ISP's in NZ can barely survive as it is ....
    Well, outside of Xtra anyway !
     
    Tony, Feb 21, 2006
    #3
  4. Tony wrote:
    >> Beacuse ISP's in NZ can barely survive as it is ....

    > Well, outside of Xtra anyway !


    Even if Telecom is forced to remove restrictions on their networks, ISPs
    will still not remove P2P rate limiting. There is still the issue of
    obtaining international bandwidth, which ISPs will keep to a minimum in
    order to make more of a profit off us.

    It pisses me off that I can't get Internet access that isn't rate
    limited without paying for dedicated bandwidth, especially when you
    consider that I am a fairly low-volume customer (around 5GB per month).

    The Other Guy
     
    The Other Guy, Feb 21, 2006
    #4
  5. On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:11:07 +1300, -=rjh=- wrote:

    > So - why has it been so necessary to shape P2P traffic in NZ?


    Necessary to keep Telecom's profit margins pinged out at the absolute
    highest they can be. No other reason.

    I mean, The Southern Cross Cable is not being used anywhere near full
    capacity, and networking equipment, and the cost of operating it, is
    considerably lower by a long shot than the profits being made.

    Somebody is probably getting a fat bonus for keeping the situation like it
    is.


    A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    A: because it messes up threading
    Q: why should I not reply by top-posting?
    A: No.
    Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
     
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 21, 2006
    #5
  6. On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:30:56 +1300, Tony wrote:

    >> So - why has it been so necessary to shape P2P traffic in NZ?

    >
    > Beacuse ISP's in NZ can barely survive as it is ....


    Rubbish!

    Somebody, somewhere within NZ is absolutely creaming themselves over all
    the profits they're making.

    The Southern Cross Cable has already been completely paid for, hasn't it?

    Data in the USA is very cheap. There is no good reason why a similar
    environment cannot exist here now that the SCC is in the black.


    A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    Every major worm other than the original Morris Worm from 1988 has leveraged
    a hole in Microsoft products.
     
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 21, 2006
    #6
  7. On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:00:31 +1300, The Other Guy wrote:

    > Tony wrote:
    >>> Beacuse ISP's in NZ can barely survive as it is ....

    >> Well, outside of Xtra anyway !

    >
    > Even if Telecom is forced to remove restrictions on their networks, ISPs
    > will still not remove P2P rate limiting. There is still the issue of
    > obtaining international bandwidth, which ISPs will keep to a minimum in
    > order to make more of a profit off us.
    >
    > It pisses me off that I can't get Internet access that isn't rate limited
    > without paying for dedicated bandwidth, especially when you consider that
    > I am a fairly low-volume customer (around 5GB per month).


    Is dedicated bandwidth expensive to get?

    Or is it just that it would be total overkill for what you'd use?


    A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    A: because it messes up threading
    Q: why should I not reply by top-posting?
    A: No.
    Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
     
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 21, 2006
    #7
  8. A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:00:31 +1300, The Other Guy wrote:
    >
    >> Tony wrote:
    >>>> Beacuse ISP's in NZ can barely survive as it is ....
    >>> Well, outside of Xtra anyway !

    >> Even if Telecom is forced to remove restrictions on their networks, ISPs
    >> will still not remove P2P rate limiting. There is still the issue of
    >> obtaining international bandwidth, which ISPs will keep to a minimum in
    >> order to make more of a profit off us.
    >>
    >> It pisses me off that I can't get Internet access that isn't rate limited
    >> without paying for dedicated bandwidth, especially when you consider that
    >> I am a fairly low-volume customer (around 5GB per month).

    >
    > Is dedicated bandwidth expensive to get?
    >
    > Or is it just that it would be total overkill for what you'd use?


    Dedicated bandwidth is both expensive, and overkill for what I'd use.
    From what I've read, Telecom provides only 24Kbs^-1 per user on their
    UBS plans. My current plan offers a maximum of 256kbs^-1, which means I
    can only get the maximum speed when there is excess capacity. Fair
    enough. BUT, the catch is, if I attempt to use my bandwidth for P2P or
    other non-standard protocols, other users will be given more bandwidth
    than I will be.

    All I am asking for is fairness, and INTERNET access, not some
    watered-down HTTP/E-mail solution.

    The Other Guy
     
    The Other Guy, Feb 21, 2006
    #8
  9. -=rjh=-

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:11:07 +1300, -=rjh=- <> wrote:

    >So - why has it been so necessary to shape P2P traffic in NZ?


    Not all ISP's do. ihug don't appear to.
     
    Craig Shore, Feb 21, 2006
    #9
  10. -=rjh=-

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Craig Shore wrote:
    > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:11:07 +1300, -=rjh=- <> wrote:
    >
    >> So - why has it been so necessary to shape P2P traffic in NZ?

    >
    > Not all ISP's do. ihug don't appear to.


    I still haven't worked out if Actrix do and I've been with them for 10 days.
    Might call them up actually. The helpdesk is open 'til midnite.

    **************************

    Ok, just spoke to them. They do no shaping whatsoever. Actrix that is. The
    guy said if I'm getting slower speeds than I'm expecting (and, as you know,
    it's always hard to judge with a torrent) it's probably because of the
    limits Telecom place on the UBS product, nothing to do with prioritising of
    traffic by Actrix.

    I'm on the 2M / 128kbps, 1GB / day plan. After 1GB my speed drops to 64kbps
    up / down until midnite, then it gets unthrottled again. I'm managing nearly
    1.5GB / day. I usually leave a torrent (or two) running overnight and when I
    get up I'm rate-limited. (I wish it switched over at noon instead of
    midnite). When I'm not actively using my connection during the day I leave
    Azureus uploading unthrottled (It hogs all available bandwidth so I have to
    pause it when I want to check email or download newsgroups, surf etc.).
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Feb 21, 2006
    #10
  11. On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:59:10 +1300, The Other Guy wrote:

    >>> It pisses me off that I can't get Internet access that isn't rate
    >>> limited without paying for dedicated bandwidth, especially when you
    >>> consider that I am a fairly low-volume customer (around 5GB per month).

    >>
    >> Is dedicated bandwidth expensive to get?
    >>
    >> Or is it just that it would be total overkill for what you'd use?

    >
    > Dedicated bandwidth is both expensive, and overkill for what I'd use.
    > From what I've read, Telecom provides only 24Kbs^-1 per user on their
    > UBS plans. My current plan offers a maximum of 256kbs^-1, which means I
    > can only get the maximum speed when there is excess capacity. Fair enough.
    > BUT, the catch is, if I attempt to use my bandwidth for P2P or other
    > non-standard protocols, other users will be given more bandwidth than I
    > will be.
    >
    > All I am asking for is fairness, and INTERNET access, not some
    > watered-down HTTP/E-mail solution.


    I agree with you.

    I would say that everything less than full-speed, uncapped, flat-rate,
    affordable DSL should not be considered to be a good quality broadband
    service.


    A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    A: because it messes up threading
    Q: why should I not reply by top-posting?
    A: No.
    Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
     
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 21, 2006
    #11
  12. -=rjh=-

    Tony Guest

    A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:30:56 +1300, Tony wrote:
    >
    >>> So - why has it been so necessary to shape P2P traffic in NZ?

    >> Beacuse ISP's in NZ can barely survive as it is ....

    >
    > Rubbish!
    >
    > Somebody, somewhere within NZ is absolutely creaming themselves over all
    > the profits they're making.
    >


    Righto, seeing as you think you can comment, go ask the Southern Cross
    people how much a "protected" (redundant loop) stm1 (155Mb/s) link to LA
    will cost. When you have that information, get out your calculator and
    get back to us. Don't forget to add plenty of capex and maintenance into
    your budget. PS, yes I know the answers but seeing as you think you can
    comment you go check it out !



    > The Southern Cross Cable has already been completely paid for, hasn't it?
    >
    > Data in the USA is very cheap. There is no good reason why a similar
    > environment cannot exist here now that the SCC is in the black.
    >
    >
    > A Nice Cup of Tea
    >
     
    Tony, Feb 21, 2006
    #12
  13. -=rjh=-

    Tony Guest

    > The Southern Cross Cable has already been completely paid for, hasn't it?
    >
    > Data in the USA is very cheap. There is no good reason why a similar
    > environment cannot exist here now that the SCC is in the black.


    I don't recall reading that the Southern cross network project was a
    non-profit or charitable undertaking ? And I don't recall any government
    money going into the hundreds of millions of dollars that it cost to put
    the network in. Why should a commercial operation have to stop making a
    profit just because ONE (the fiber, the equipment that connects to it
    needs to be constantly updated) of it's assets may be now "sunk cost" ?
    To be nice to you so you can download unrestricted illegal movies and porn ?
     
    Tony, Feb 21, 2006
    #13
  14. -=rjh=-

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Tony wrote:
    >> The Southern Cross Cable has already been completely paid for,
    >> hasn't it? Data in the USA is very cheap. There is no good reason why a
    >> similar
    >> environment cannot exist here now that the SCC is in the black.

    >
    > I don't recall reading that the Southern cross network project was a
    > non-profit or charitable undertaking ? And I don't recall any
    > government money going into the hundreds of millions of dollars that
    > it cost to put the network in. Why should a commercial operation have
    > to stop making a profit just because ONE (the fiber, the equipment
    > that connects to it needs to be constantly updated) of it's assets may be
    > now "sunk cost"
    > ? To be nice to you so you can download unrestricted illegal movies and
    > porn ?


    Right up until that last line you had a (seemingly) very valid post. Shame
    you felt compelled to make a personal attack to finish, it sorta detracts
    from the "facts". If you have your facts right there's no need for
    nastiness, let the figures do the talking.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Feb 21, 2006
    #14
  15. On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:38:56 +1300, Tony wrote:

    > Righto, seeing as you think you can comment, go ask the Southern Cross
    > people how much a "protected" (redundant loop) stm1 (155Mb/s) link to LA
    > will cost.


    Who owns the Southern Cross cable? Telecom??


    A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    Free software on every PC on every desk.
     
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 21, 2006
    #15
  16. On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:44:49 +1300, Tony wrote:

    >> The Southern Cross Cable has already been completely paid for, hasn't
    >> it?
    >>
    >> Data in the USA is very cheap. There is no good reason why a similar
    >> environment cannot exist here now that the SCC is in the black.

    >
    > I don't recall reading that the Southern cross network project was a
    > non-profit or charitable undertaking ? And I don't recall any government
    > money going into the hundreds of millions of dollars that it cost to put
    > the network in. Why should a commercial operation have to stop making a
    > profit just because ONE (the fiber, the equipment that connects to it
    > needs to be constantly updated) of it's assets may be now "sunk cost" ? To
    > be nice to you so you can download unrestricted illegal movies and porn ?


    Why are you implying that I am wanting to "download unrestricted illegal
    movies and porn"? I never said that.

    Why are you making it personal? Can't you address the subject rather than
    attacking somebody?

    I was commenting on the unreasonably high and expensive data costs that
    end users have to pay here in NZ, and then pointing out that somebody
    somewhere in the data-transmission infrastructure is positively raking in
    the cash.

    Classic example, IMHO, of no reason for them to provide a service at a
    reasonable price, and so they extort what they like.

    Why else would a genuine full-speed uncapped, unrestructed, DSL link
    continue to be hideously expensive?


    A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    "I like the boys who do. I respect the boys who don't. I hate the boys who
    say they do but then say they don't. But most of all, and I think this
    is right, I like those who say they don't, but look like they really might."
     
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 21, 2006
    #16
  17. -=rjh=-

    Tony Guest

    >
    > Right up until that last line you had a (seemingly) very valid post. Shame
    > you felt compelled to make a personal attack to finish, it sorta detracts
    > from the "facts". If you have your facts right there's no need for
    > nastiness, let the figures do the talking.


    I apologise, that comment was uncalled for.
     
    Tony, Feb 21, 2006
    #17
  18. -=rjh=-

    Tony Guest


    >
    > Who owns the Southern Cross cable? Telecom??
    >
    >

    They own 50%, There actually is almost reasonable competition in
    International bandwidth now. The problem is there is not reasionable
    competition in the local loop. If you don't rate limit the people who
    use peer to peer then they will use MOST of the bandwidth available.
    This means that everyone else get's even less of the 24kb/s (maximum)
    that Telecom allocates on it's ATM backbone and other services such as
    http/SMTP can become unusable.

    The issue is NOT Southern Cross, it is Telecom's overloaded last decade
    ATM backbone within this country.
     
    Tony, Feb 21, 2006
    #18
  19. -=rjh=-

    shannon Guest

    Tony wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Who owns the Southern Cross cable? Telecom??
    >>
    >>

    > They own 50%, There actually is almost reasonable competition in
    > International bandwidth now. The problem is there is not reasionable
    > competition in the local loop. If you don't rate limit the people who
    > use peer to peer then they will use MOST of the bandwidth available.
    > This means that everyone else get's even less of the 24kb/s (maximum)
    > that Telecom allocates on it's ATM backbone and other services such as
    > http/SMTP can become unusable.
    >
    > The issue is NOT Southern Cross, it is Telecom's overloaded last decade
    > ATM backbone within this country.


    So what is the current best solution to that ?
     
    shannon, Feb 21, 2006
    #19
  20. -=rjh=-

    Tony Guest

    >> The issue is NOT Southern Cross, it is Telecom's overloaded last
    >> decade ATM backbone within this country.

    >
    > So what is the current best solution to that ?


    Telecom needs to get moving and migrate the DSL network to their new IP
    backbone, or at least change their profit expectations for the ATM network.
     
    Tony, Feb 21, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Doug A Moller

    Need help with peer to peer no hub network

    Doug A Moller, Jun 23, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    5,740
  2. =?Utf-8?B?QmlsbEM=?=

    peer to peer linking and sharing

    =?Utf-8?B?QmlsbEM=?=, Aug 23, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    691
    =?Utf-8?B?QmlsbEM=?=
    Aug 23, 2004
  3. Anon

    You say SIM, I say SEM

    Anon, Mar 17, 2006, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    540
    Randal T. Rioux
    Mar 18, 2006
  4. Harry Stottle
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,045
    Harry Stottle
    Jan 5, 2010
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    605
    Gordon
    Oct 6, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page